## Facts

- Langman Fabrics, a small textile converter, obtained a copyright registration for a fabric design known as “Pattern # L-303 Plume,” listing Langman as author under the work-made-for-hire doctrine and stating a first publication date in 1984.
- Langman alleged that Fashion Initiatives, Inc. and Samsung America Inc. marketed goods bearing a design copied from Langman’s plume pattern.
- The ownership dispute turned on whether the artist who created the design was an employee (supporting work-made-for-hire) or an independent contractor.
- In discovery, Aaron Langman gave an initial deposition that the district court read as conceding lack of ownership, followed by later testimony providing additional detail about how the design was created and by whom.
- Gerald Block testified to business practices relevant to employment status, including that taxes were withheld from the artist’s pay.
- The district court granted defendants summary judgment, holding (1) Langman failed to prove ownership and (2) the copyright was forfeited because the copyright notice omitted the year of first publication.

## Issues

1. Whether the copyright registration and record evidence raised a genuine dispute of material fact that Langman owned the design as a work made for hire (or otherwise), making summary judgment on ownership improper.
2. Whether omission of the year of first publication from the copyright notice automatically forfeited the copyright under the Copyright Act of 1976.
3. Whether a court may disregard later deposition testimony at summary judgment as a sham contradiction of earlier testimony when the later testimony can be viewed as an elaboration.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that the registration certificate created a presumption of validity and ownership that affected the burden of proof, and the defendants did not eliminate genuine fact disputes concerning work-made-for-hire status.
- The court held it was improper at summary judgment to discount later deposition testimony as a sham where it reasonably could be treated as elaboration rather than a clear contradiction.
- The court held that omission of the year in the copyright notice did not, by itself, require forfeiture under the 1976 Act’s notice provisions.

## Legal Principles

- A certificate of copyright registration constitutes prima facie evidence of validity and ownership, shifting to the challenger the burden to rebut the presumption with evidence.
- Summary judgment is improper where record evidence permits competing findings on employee status and work-made-for-hire ownership.
- Later testimony should not be disregarded at summary judgment merely because it adds detail; only clear, unexplained contradictions offered solely to manufacture a fact issue may be ignored.
- Under the Copyright Act of 1976, technical defects in copyright notice—such as omission of the year—do not automatically terminate protection; courts must apply the statute’s limitations and corrective provisions rather than impose automatic forfeiture.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit reinstated Langman’s infringement case by holding that the registration and deposition record created triable issues on work-made-for-hire ownership and that a missing year in the copyright notice did not automatically extinguish rights under the 1976 Act, requiring further proceedings on the merits.


Langman Fabrics, a Div. of Blocks Fashion Fabrics, Inc. v. Graff Cal. Wear, Inc., 160 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 1998)